Tuesday, April 14, 2009
April 7, 2009 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
Present: Joe Incandela, Janet Fore, Nancy Nekvasil, Chris Cobb, Charlie Peltier
Guest: Jessica Ickes
Minutes from the previous meeting (April 2) were approved.
Updates:
Joe updated the committee about sabbatical replacements for next year. There was some discussion of possibilities.
Planning for General Education Lunch April 15
The discussion will focus on governance of general education. Dean Fleming will give an overview of the Governance Manual statement on the governance of the curriculum and outline the current expectations for the form, powers, and responsibilities of a governing body. After this, a general discussion is anticipated. One point to be emphasized is that all the faculty will have ownership of the whole of General Education.
Discussion of LO3
Most of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of implementation for LO3 outcomes in the curriculum.
There seems to be a consensus that we should not require that every student address LO3 outcomes in every one of the four curricular areas (arms of the cross).
The discussion focused very much on organizing and tracking the way in which the outcomes would be addressed, and the requirements that would be placed on a student and on the structure of the courses to assure that each student addresses the outcomes.
One question: should some outcomes be part of the required outcomes in certain areas (Some ideas tentatively discussed: intercultural competency addressed in modern language, social responsibility addressed in at least one of the required courses in (physical/life) science, global awareness in at least one of the required courses in social science).
A consensus seemed to evolve that tying the LO3 outcomes specifically to course requirements (“linking” courses to outcomes) would diminish the effectiveness of the requirements by making these outcomes less visible to the students and limiting the student’s flexibility within the program.
Much of the discussion worked with the idea of two experiences for the student with each of the three LO3 outcomes. One might be required within a course, the second with a designated course or experience. This would involve “certifying” courses or experiences (with S – social responsibility, G –global awareness, I – intercultural competence or some other designation), but would allow use of service trips, study abroad, courses in or outside the major to meet the requirement.
Guest: Jessica Ickes
Minutes from the previous meeting (April 2) were approved.
Updates:
Joe updated the committee about sabbatical replacements for next year. There was some discussion of possibilities.
Planning for General Education Lunch April 15
The discussion will focus on governance of general education. Dean Fleming will give an overview of the Governance Manual statement on the governance of the curriculum and outline the current expectations for the form, powers, and responsibilities of a governing body. After this, a general discussion is anticipated. One point to be emphasized is that all the faculty will have ownership of the whole of General Education.
Discussion of LO3
Most of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of implementation for LO3 outcomes in the curriculum.
There seems to be a consensus that we should not require that every student address LO3 outcomes in every one of the four curricular areas (arms of the cross).
The discussion focused very much on organizing and tracking the way in which the outcomes would be addressed, and the requirements that would be placed on a student and on the structure of the courses to assure that each student addresses the outcomes.
One question: should some outcomes be part of the required outcomes in certain areas (Some ideas tentatively discussed: intercultural competency addressed in modern language, social responsibility addressed in at least one of the required courses in (physical/life) science, global awareness in at least one of the required courses in social science).
A consensus seemed to evolve that tying the LO3 outcomes specifically to course requirements (“linking” courses to outcomes) would diminish the effectiveness of the requirements by making these outcomes less visible to the students and limiting the student’s flexibility within the program.
Much of the discussion worked with the idea of two experiences for the student with each of the three LO3 outcomes. One might be required within a course, the second with a designated course or experience. This would involve “certifying” courses or experiences (with S – social responsibility, G –global awareness, I – intercultural competence or some other designation), but would allow use of service trips, study abroad, courses in or outside the major to meet the requirement.
# posted by Joe Incandela @ 9:16 AM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]